one botched circumcision is for me enough to justify banning it when medically unnecessary (so don't come at me with phimosis), unless the subject is able to consent to it.
one botched circumcision is for me enough to justify banning it when medically unnecessary (so don't come at me with phimosis), unless the subject is able to consent to it.I am cut and can tell you that I don't feel ANYTHING on the corona(which is supposed to be the most sensitive part) there is no justification for removing not only the nerve endings but that which keeps the penis head moist and sensitive.
I started stretching the skin to "regrow" it a few years back because erections were painful and there were always stretch marks in the skin afterwards. It not only made the pain go away but it also made it bigger once I had grown new skin which makes me wonder if getting cut stunted my growth at all to which I am convinced it did.
It basically boils down to people having foreskin envy because they read on the internet it feels better.
no, it supposedly just decreases the chance of a man to get it, because the skin thickens.
I bet there isn't a proper study to see if the reduced sensitivity won't in turn discourage condom use anyway.
I am cut and can tell you that I don't feel ANYTHING on the corona(which is supposed to be the most sensitive part) there is no justification for removing not only the nerve endings but that which keeps the penis head moist and sensitive.
I started stretching the skin to "regrow" it a few years back because erections were painful and there were always stretch marks in the skin afterwards. It not only made the pain go away but it also made it bigger once I had grown new skin which makes me wonder if getting cut stunted my growth at all to which I am convinced it did.
one botched circumcision is for me enough to justify banning it when medically unnecessary (so don't come at me with phimosis), unless the subject is able to consent to it.
allow other types of trained health workers (e.g. nurses) to perform the procedure
There is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%. Three randomized controlled trials have shown that male circumcision provided by well trained health professionals in properly equipped settings is safe. WHO/UNAIDS recommendations emphasize that male circumcision should be considered an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention in countries and regions with heterosexual epidemics, high HIV and low male circumcision prevalence.
Male circumcision provides only partial protection, and therefore should be only one element of a comprehensive HIV prevention package which includes: the provision of HIV testing and counseling services; treatment for sexually transmitted infections; the promotion of safer sex practices; the provision of male and female condoms and promotion of their correct and consistent use.
It feels worse not having a foreskin, not only when it comes to sex, but also when going about mundane day to day activities. Since coming across this thread and talking to friends I have been told by my circumcised friends that they find it uncomfortable the way their glands are unprotected and always exposed to friction when doing mundane things such as walking around. The foreskin is supposed to stop the penis constantly being subjected to unnecessary and uncomfortable friction. Personally I don't think any guy should have to live like that if they don't have to.
It amazes me how circumcised men are the first ones to support circumcision, just incredible.
I still can't believe MC is being justified by governments and WHO in 2015, I never knew any of this was still going on. It just seems so unethical.
Oh you are one of those.
I've never given it more than 2 seconds of thought. Its the social norm here in the US. I've heard of people who went on expeditions and shit
I like my circumcision. It looks great.
Jolly good for you.
Did you have a choice or was it a procedure performed on you as an infant?
If it was not an adult 'Style choice', you must have been a passive victim of parental norms and cultural traditions. You underwent a ritual and unnecessary procedure without proven medical benefits. (Doubt that? Read Matt Pegher, on this thread, he has an uncircumcised son, he is circumcised, he is a doctor of medicine. If circumcision is so great he might be expected to have asked for his son to be circumcised? Do you not agree?)
If you were circumcised as an infant, like the vast majority of those subjected to the operation, then all you can possibly do is "get on with it and like it". You had no choice.
The alternative, justly to rage against the assault performed on you as an infant, is clearly too painful and deeply repressed for you to comprehend.
If voluntary, informed, adult circumcision is so wonderful, why are so few adult men asking to have the operation? I see no queues.
The occasional case of phimosis in the uneducated male, who has yet to achieve full pull-back, at adolescence, perhaps.
Does that justify the procedure as a perpetual unevidenced norm, as in Islam, Judaism and African tribes where basic genital hygene is compromised by a lack of chlorinated running water?
So, if we can find a doctor that advocates circumcision does that invalidate your case.
Depends on the religion and ethnicity of the doctor, I suppose.
In America where there are lots of Jewish doctors you find lots of unnecessary circumcisions. In Denmark, with fewer Jewish doctors you find fewer circumcisions.
In Saudi Arabia nearly all males are circumcised. Nearly all doctors there are Muslim. Do you get my drift?
You have been circumcised Dave, having never had a choice in the matter, you advocate the procedure. That is stunningly, blindingly inevitable. You must see that.!?
Matt Pegher, a circumcised doctor (who writes here) does not want to have his son circumcised. That is a crucial case for this thread. Surely you grasp that?
The only sample here that has any scientific validity, and I believe that you are smart enough to understand this, is the sample of men, voluntarily circumcised as adults, who freely opted for circumcision without attendant medical reasons. If they are all chilled happy bunnies, then fine. But I don't know any.
I know men circumcised as adults but they mostly had trouble with under-foreskin irritation, infection and phimosis or strangely inaccurate aim whilst urinating. They are quite happy because their persistent infections have gone. And because they had tight foreskins they never achieved full coronal stimulation during intercourse anyhow. Thus they are not a fair sample to use in this evidence-based project of ours. But these cases are really quite rare. Certainly too few to justify circumcision as a routine procedure on normal infants.
I stress that I am certainly not opposed to any safe surgical procedure necessary for the health of a child or adult.
I simply don't believe that is a tenable position. You agree that you were circumcised as an infant. Therefore the procedure was obviously performed without your informed consent. Several of your posts use hyperbole to attack those opposed to the procedure. You claim to be amazed at all the things you can still do without a foreskin. Thus you are mocking those opposed to circumcision.I don't believe I have been advocating for either side in this thread honestly, I have tried to keep an open mind.
I disagree rather strongly with your choice of who is or is not a proper sample, but we will just be chasing our tails at this point.
I have a feeling those men you know that got circumcised later in life sort of wish they had it done at a time they wouldn't remember it!
You certainly are not in this thread with an open mind so there is little else to discuss here. My problem is that I am not strongly married enough to either side I suppose. I can see both of them.
Several of your posts use hyperbole to attack those opposed to the procedure. You claim to be amazed at all the things you can still do without a foreskin. Thus you are mocking those opposed to circumcision.
That is neither neutral nor open-minded, is it?
If you don't think my suggested sample is valid, then the burden is on you to say WHY it is invalid and to suggest a better one. You can't just walk away saying "Tisn't", without offering counter evidence. (Well, you can walk away, of course, but it implies an unwillingness to do the necessary research).
You announce that you are neutral and that I am biased. Please, you are openly mocking those opposed to the procedure!
My position is congruent with that of Matt Pegher, a circumcised doctor who sees no reason to circumcise his son. Many people on this board who are advocates of circumcision seem unable to discuss or even acknowledge his post.
I don't have a problem with Matt's position at all. In fact I believe he did what EVERY parent should do. Weigh the evidence and make the best decision you can. That is sort of parenting 101. Good for Matt.
The only remaining difference between us, you will correct me if I am wrong here, is that my position starts from a general ethic "do no harm", which I have tried to extend to this current issue. Where we might differ is that I cannot see what, if any, principle informs your claimed 'neutrality'. I am assuming that you would be opposed to female genital mutiliation? So, if that is the case, why are you 'neutral' about interfering with the genitals of boys?
My remaining question...are you OK with circumcision even it is NOT of medical benefit to the child?
Good, we agree, but do you not accept that Matt's decision is rather special in this context because of his medical qualification and 20 years of clinical experience?
I suppose part of this comes from the fact that having been circumcised as an infant and generally living with a community of those in the same position, I never really thought of the act as "mutilation". Honestly that description still gives me some pause because I never felt violated or mutilated. I have no discernible negative effects from the procedure that I can see, although I agree the procedure may not have been medically necessary in this day and age, especially considering where I was raised.
I am fully opposed to female genital mutilation, perhaps that is colored by the fact that my only offspring is female. I also believe that female circumcision is far more destructive and brutal a procedure. It is hard for me to compare the two.
Agreed. Evolution is most insistent that whatever else intrudes in our lives, "let's get some sex", is high on the list of 'things to do'. Even wounded soldiers who have had their genitals blown away by gunfire or IEDs still crave sex. Although to different degrees, depending on the nature of the wound.Like most men out there, for me sex is great! I have never once said to myself "Man this sucks. I sure wish I had never been circumcised".
I guess the skeptic in me however wonders if there is a similar corollary where a non circumcised doctor chose to have his sons circumcised? Perhaps from his own very different clinical observations. That is why my stance has been the way it is. Perhaps that is being overly cautious in proclaiming Matt's experience as "game over".